Flurry of Blows and Special Attacks

[jessemock]

Argh. I suppose, given the results last time around, that I shouldn't step into the middle of this one, but here goes.


1. 'Unarmed attack' is initially defined only with reference to unarmed strikes (in the Combat section).

2. 'Unarmed attack' in the glossary is different than this initial definition; it's broader.

3. 'Unarmed Strike' defined under the equipment section directly conflicts with 'unarmed strike' in the glossary.

4. 'Unarmed melee touch attack' is not defined anywhere. Is it considered a light weapon?

5. Grapple Checks are probably attack rolls--in 3.0, when one could use TWF with grapples, the penalties applied to the grapple checks.

6. WF: Grapple probably applies to Grapple Checks and not to the initial unarmed touch attack to establish a Grapple (as the bonus from Imp. Grapple does). This parallels WF: whatever and Imp. Disarm.

7. It may be possible to Grapple with a weapon, but no list of viable weapons has been provided (as has been done with trip). It does make sense to allow this on grounds of realism, as anyone who has ever been grappled by a cop with a billy club can attest. Grappling with a weapon wouldn't eliminate the AoO, as with Disarm and unlike Trip (thus, 'yes, yes, no' on the AoO table).

8. The Unarmed Strike of a monk is different than all other unarmed strikes.

9. As written, it seems that only monks may cause lethal damage with a grapple.

10. It seems absurd to establish Monks as potential grapple monkeys in all respects except FoB.

11. Couldn't they have fixed the glossary at least?

 

[MarauderX]

No I didn't. They say the same thing.

I don't see how. Zans's complete arguement in the other thread directly opposes what was said in this one, as I stated above, though if you read the out-of-context quote I understand that you might interpret it as the same - if you s t r e t c h e d.

I read the entire grappling thread. I also read the SRD. I solicited Hypersmurf's opinion in the other thread as HS was so vehement in this thread mentioned earlier. It is directly related, and given Zans has fought both sides of the arguement I can see how Zans would be 'right' in at least one of them. If not, Zans, please give me clarification on your interpretation of the rules, for or against using FoBs for grappling.
That recent thread dealt with all special attacks & FoB, and already covers all of the items that Zans re-iterates here. It is worth reading the whole thing, as definitions and related feats are listed and argued about how FoBs is applied to special attacks (FoBs is a type of special attack).

Relative to the discussion, Zans argued the following in the 'Grapple' thread:

You can't use flurry to initiate a Grapple. Once you are grappling, you can use the "Attack Your Opponent" grapple action with a flurry of blows (with the standard -4 penalty). However, you must use all the flurry attacks for really attacking (no pin snuck in at the end, for example).

You can use a flurry attack to Disarm (unarmed strike or with a monk weapon).

You can't use a flurry attack to Trip. Although Trip requires an unarmed (touch) attack, it does not deliver an unarmed strike--it delivers a trip attack.

Would everyone agree that all special attacks are considered the same? Or do the rules indicate that each special attack is different, as quoted above? The way the rules read to me is that they are all types of special attacks, and if you can't do one with FoBs you can't do any of them.
If you disagree, how would you rule each of the special attacks and, according to the rules, why?

 

[ZansForCans]

Argh. I suppose, given the results last time around, that I shouldn't step into the middle of this one, but here goes.

Don't worry, I don't get personal with this stuff... it's only a game

1. 'Unarmed attack' is initially defined only with reference to unarmed strikes (in the Combat section).

The definition is in the glossary. A description is in the Combat section, with explicit game rules for various aspects of it.

Actually, it describes many other types in that section: "A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons..."

2. 'Unarmed attack' in the glossary is different than this initial definition; it's broader.

See above...

3. 'Unarmed Strike' defined under the equipment section directly conflicts with 'unarmed strike' in the glossary.

Er, how's that? The glossary says what it is, and the equipment description tells you how it works.

4. 'Unarmed melee touch attack' is not defined anywhere. Is it considered a light weapon?

Unarmed attacks and touch attacks are both quite explicitly defined. Applying both types to an attack doesn't result in any conflicting rules. What's the problem?

5. Grapple Checks are probably attack rolls--in 3.0, when one could use TWF with grapples, the penalties applied to the grapple checks.

Well, I expounded about some of that a bit here. They are quite specifically opposed check rolls, not attack rolls, although for the purpose of applying some bonuses, they are like attack rolls.

Who ever said you could use TWF with grapples, even in 3.0?

6. WF: Grapple probably applies to Grapple Checks and not to the initial unarmed touch attack to establish a Grapple (as the bonus from Imp. Grapple does). This parallels WF: whatever and Imp. Disarm.

I'd agree with that.

7. It may be possible to Grapple with a weapon, but no list of viable weapons has been provided (as has been done with trip). It does make sense to allow this on grounds of realism, as anyone who has ever been grappled by a cop with a billy club can attest. Grappling with a weapon wouldn't eliminate the AoO, as with Disarm and unlike Trip (thus, 'yes, yes, no' on the AoO table).

But what's the advantage? Like I wrote above, there's no problem grappling with weapons in your hands. Do you want to use the enhancement bonus of a weapon for the Grapple? I guess I can see that extension as a soft house rule, but from a physically mechanical point, it would seem to affect a much lower cross section of weapons than those that could be used to Trip.

8. The Unarmed Strike of a monk is different than all other unarmed strikes.

9. As written, it seems that only monks may cause lethal damage with a grapple.

Agreed--pretty much. Any character can deal lethal damage, but they take a penalty. Characters with IUS can opt to "Attack Your Opponent", but the effective penalty is admittedly the same (-4). Take Improved Grapple.

10. It seems absurd to establish Monks as potential grapple monkeys in all respects except FoB.

Why, just cause they can deal lethal damage? It's a major element of the character class. Monsters with Improved Grab deal lethal damage similarly with a simple grapple check. Why does everyone get to do the same?

11. Couldn't they have fixed the glossary at least?

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you disagree, how would you rule each of the special attacks and, according to the rules, why?

I agree with Zans on this one.

You can attack with an Unarmed Strike or a special Monk Weapon.

Since Disarm is performed with a weapon and substitutes for any melee attack, you can Disarm with an Unarmed Strike or a special Monk Weapon.

Trip can be performed as an unarmed touch attack (not a touch attack with an Unarmed Strike, note), or with a special Trip weapon, and substitutes for any melee attack. Since a Kama is both a special Monk weapon and a Trip weapon, you can Trip with a Kama.

Grapple is performed as a melee touch attack (not a touch attack with an Unarmed Strike or a special Monk Weapon), and substitutes for any melee attack. Can't be done in a Flurry - doesn't use the right weapons.

Sunder is a standard action. Doesn't substitute for a melee attack, so can't be performed as part of a full attack action, and thus can't be performed as part of a Flurry.

In summary - the special attacks all follow the same rule: If you're using an Unarmed Strike or a Special Monk weapon, and they substitute for a melee attack, they can be used in a Flurry.

That doesn't mean that "All are legal" or "All are illegal", but it means they're all judged by the same criteria.

-Hyp.

 

[ZansForCans]

It is directly related, and given Zans has fought both sides of the arguement I can see how Zans would be 'right' in at least one of them. If not, Zans, please give me clarification on your interpretation of the rules, for or against using FoBs for grappling.

Why do you keep saying this? You even quoted the two bits above and they say the same thing. Here is the breakdown again for Grapple and FoB:

• You are a monk. You are 5' from your opponent. You decide to attempt to initiate a Grapple. As a result, you may not use Flurry of Blows this round since you are not using an unarmed strike or a monk weapon.
  
• The foe's AoO fails. Your attempt to grab succeeds. You are now grappled with the foe. If you have further iterative attacks (i.e. your BAB is +6 or greater), you may opt to do any of the grapple actions described under Combat::Special Attacks::Grapple::If You’re Grappling (SRD) as many times as your remaining attacks allow.
  
• On the next round, you may do as many of those actions as your BAB allows again.
  
  OR
  
  You Flurry and take the "Attack Your Opponent" grapple action once for each of your Flurry attacks. You must use an unarmed strike or a monk weapon, as restricted by Flurry. Each attack takes a -4 penalty as specified in the "Attack Your Opponent" grapple action.

That's it. I've said the same in both threads. Let me know where you think I didn't--I certainly never meant to convey that.

 

[MarauderX]

8. The Unarmed Strike of a monk is different than all other unarmed strikes.

Nah, only Flurry of Blows is different. Well, maybe.

9. As written, it seems that only monks may cause lethal damage with a grapple.

Unarmed, unless you take the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, no. Also, you can use a natural or light weapon to attack at a -4 penalty.

 

[jessemock]

The definition is in the glossary. A description is in the Combat section, with explicit game rules for various aspects of it.

A description that begins "Striking for damage..."

Actually, it describes many other types in that section: "A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons..."

which, with the above, confuses these with variations of "striking for damage..."

Er, how's that? The glossary says what it is, and the equipment description tells you how it works.

You can't replace 'unarmed strike' in all places with the same definition. That means the phrase is not used consistently. The phrase in FoB does not mean "a successful blow..." The text uses the same phrase to refer to both a cause and an effect.

Unarmed attacks and touch attacks are both quite explicitly defined. Applying both types to an attack doesn't result in any conflicting rules. What's the problem?

TWF: I make an unarmed melee touch attack with my offhand (and, what the hey, with my 'on' hand)--what're the penalties?

Of course, they're both light weapons, but the only unarmed attack that I've found described as such is an 'unarmed strike'.

And the confusion arises when we ask whether 'unarmed strike' in FoB really means 'unarmed attack'.

although for the purpose of applying some bonuses, they are like attack rolls.

If you apply the WF:G bonus to grapple checks and not to the initial melee touch attack, then that initial attack is not a grapple.

Who ever said you could use TWF with grapples, even in 3.0?

It's in the 3.0 faq, pages 43-4.

But what's the advantage?

I don't know.

Agreed--pretty much. Any character can deal lethal damage, but they take a penalty.

Right, right.

Why, just cause they can deal lethal damage? It's a major element of the character class. Monsters with Improved Grab deal lethal damage similarly with a simple grapple check. Why does everyone get to do the same

I don't know what you're saying here.

 

[jessemock]

Nah, only Flurry of Blows is different. Well, maybe.

Yeah, actually: a monk's unarmed strike provides benefits that IUS does not, including the ability to cause lethal damage without a penalty.

 

[MarauderX]

• 
  [1] You are a monk. You are 5' from your opponent. You decide to attempt to initiate a Grapple. As a result, you may not use Flurry of Blows this round since you are not using an unarmed strike or a monk weapon.
  
  [2] The foe's AoO fails. Your attempt to grab succeeds. You are now grappled with the foe. If you have further iterative attacks (i.e. your BAB is +6 or greater), you may opt to do any of the grapple actions described under Combat::Special Attacks::Grapple::If You’re Grappling (SRD) as many times as your remaining attacks allow.
  
  [3] On the next round, you may do as many of those actions as your BAB allows again. OR You Flurry and take the "Attack Your Opponent" grapple action once for each of your Flurry attacks. You must use an unarmed strike or a monk weapon, as restricted by Flurry. Each attack takes a -4 penalty as specified in the "Attack Your Opponent" grapple action.

1 - Agreed.

2 - Agreed.

3 - Agreed. Cool.

So, what's the problem? I was trying to understand using FoBs for a grapple, not bringing up the point again and again for the fun of quoting someone.

And the other parts of my question was answered by Hypersmurf, but I want some more explanations, please... help out a struggling lawyer.

Since Disarm is performed with a weapon and substitutes for any melee attack, you can Disarm with an Unarmed Strike or a special Monk Weapon.

Ok, as this doesn't violate the written rules it means a monk can use a FoBs to Disarm.

Trip can be performed as an unarmed touch attack (not a touch attack with an Unarmed Strike, note), or with a special Trip weapon, and substitutes for any melee attack. Since a Kama is both a special Monk weapon and a Trip weapon, you can Trip with a Kama.

Correct me if I am wrong, but a monk can only use a FoBs to trip if you have a kama (or other tripping monk weapon).

Grapple is performed as a melee touch attack (not a touch attack with an Unarmed Strike or a special Monk Weapon), and substitutes for any melee attack. Can't be done in a Flurry - doesn't use the right weapons.

Ok, got it, as above.

Sunder is a standard action. Doesn't substitute for a melee attack, so can't be performed as part of a full attack action, and thus can't be performed as part of a Flurry.

I follow what was said about the general rules for special attacks, just wanted to clear up that sunder is a melee attack. Does this mean that if the monk in question had a sai (or other slashing or bludgeoning monk weapon) that it could be used in a FoBs, but not otherwise (sans Eagle Claw Strike)?

Thanks again for your Improve Patience.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Correct me if I am wrong, but a monk can only use a FoBs to trip if you have a kama (or other tripping monk weapon).

I thought that was what I just said

I follow what was said about the general rules for special attacks, just wanted to clear up that sunder is a melee attack. Does this mean that if the monk in question had a sai (or other slashing or bludgeoning monk weapon) that it could be used in a FoBs, but not otherwise (sans Eagle Claw Strike)?

If you're using the Sage's rule on Sunder (substitutes for any melee attack) rather than the Core Rules standard action), then you can use Sunder in a Flurry of Blows with an Unarmed Strike, Quarterstaff, Sai, or Nunchaku (bludgeoning weapons), or a Kama (slashing weapon), but not a Siangham (piercing weapon) or Shuriken (piercing, and not melee).

You don't need Eagle Claw Attack to take a Sunder action with an unarmed strike; it just lets you add your Wisdom bonus.

-Hyp.